Theonomy is Reformed – Friendly Opponents

November 7, 2010

Introduction

Not all those who don’t embrace Theonomy would assert that that it isn’t reformed. To follow I give you two examples.

Dr. Meredith Kline

Dr. Meredith Kline (Clarks beloved professor) in his critique of Dr. Bahnsen’s book “Theonomy in Christian Ethics,” wrote:

“At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. It is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith at least in the Confession’s original formulations.”

And again:

“In support of this position, Bahsen makes precedential appeal to the Westminster Confession of Faith (pp. 537 f.) and, as already intimated, there is a degree of validity in that appeal.”

In an article I linked to in the previous post, Mr. Duncan tries to explain how Dr. Kline was wrong. Obviously, I don’t believe he supported his case in that article. However, this doesn’t change the fact that a highly credentialed and contemporary Reformed professor granted that Theonomy has roots in the reformation, even though he hated the teaching.

Mr. G.I. Williamson

Mr. Williamson is well known in the reformed camp. He has written several study guides on our confessions and catechisms. He is not a Theonomist. In an article he wrote, posted here (http://reformed.org/ethics/GI.html) at http://www.reformed.org , he says:

“Do I sound like I am on the theonomists’ bandwagon? I am not.”

However, we also see him say in that same article, speaking of Calvin:

“It was for this reason that Calvin, in his commentary on the five books of Moses, showed how every "case law" taught an abiding principle. He did this by arranging all of these laws under one or another of the Ten Commandments. He showed how each of them helps us understand the intent and meaning — and proper application — of the ten central commandments.

I remain convinced that the Reformer was essentially right. I don’t think he was always right, or that he necessarily organized every case law under its proper heading (some could arguably be placed under a different commandment). But he has convinced me that there is an abiding principle in every Old Testament case law. In my opinion, the theonomists deserve credit here. They are trying to do in our generation what John Calvin did in his.”

Conclusion

These are examples from two highly respected men in our contemporary reformed community. You can see that it isn’t just the Theonomist that is attributing Theonomy to the early reformers. Next, I’ll finally start to give you the quotes I’ve gleaned from Dr. Bahnsen’s article I referred to in the earlier posts. After reading these, you’ll start to wonder how on God’s earth anyone, let alone professors in our seminaries, could ever say that Theonomy isn’t reformed.

1 Comment | Theology, Theonomy | Permalink
Posted by theonomist

Bahnsen vs. Shepherd

November 16, 2008

[EDIT] Be sure to see my additions at the bottom, with some clarification/corrections…

Dr. Clark has a post here that speaks of theonomy and the fv being separated at birth. The discussion goes on for a bit and part of it calls into question the legitimacy of bring Dr. Bahnsen into the mix. It is often stated that Bahnsen was a strong supporter of Norman Shepherd by Dr. Clark, as you can see in this more recent comment: November 6, 2008 at 8:29 am

Now, I am one of the unfortunate ones in that I never knew Dr. Bahnsen personally. But I have read much of his work and listened to much of his audio. I suspect that the support Dr. Clark speaks of for Shepherd was more of a personal support than doctrinal. Every time I read or listen to Bahnsen, I find myself hearing the tried and true soteriology of the Reformation. Bahnsen never conflated justification with sanctification as far as I can tell. You can listen to a free mp3 where he vehemently defends the Reformation and repudiates the vile doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. It is found here: The Road to Rome, Was the Reformation Right?, by Greg L. Bahnsen. I am listening to a bible study he conducted on the book of Galatians right now, and again, there is just no question or gray area when he speaks on these issues. As a side note, I think this bible study was a study done during his later years when he was pastoring in Southern California. He is so gentle and pastoral, it is amazing! Much different from the talks he gives to large crowds. You can tell it is a small group because the telephone rings sometimes and the children can be heard in the background.

Anyway, that’s my take on it, but this man knew Bahnsen personally for many years, and writes 22 pages with many quotes from Bahnsen that really should settle the issue. I hope you take the time to read it:

http://www.westminsterrpcus.org/pdf/Bahnsen.pdf

Kazoo

[EDIT]

11/18/08

I should have been a little more careful in my comments above. Basically, my point is that Bahnsen’s support for the historical reformed doctrine of Justification is very clear in all the material I have ever read of his, or heard a recording of. I can not say that I am the best student of Bahnsen, but I will state that I know A LOT of his material. And I can confirm that I have never run into anything that would bring into question whether he believed and taught the orthodox reformed doctrine of Justification found in the Westminster Standards.

For example:

Larger Catechism Questions & Answers #’s 70 – 73

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XI

Of Justification
I.    Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;  not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,  they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II.    Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:  yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

Now, I am not an expert on the FV or Norman Shepherd. I am reading through Shepherd’s book “The Call of Grace” right now. So, it is/was unfair of me to hint at or to write with the assumption that Shepherd’s doctrine of Justification “conflates” sanctification with justification. Some say vehemently that it does, and others don’t. Dr. R. Scott Clark linked to a web page that David Bahnsen wrote to say that Dr. Bahnsen supported Shepherd both personally and doctrinally. That can be found here.

Like I said, I really don’t know very well what Shepherd taught or what he teaches and if the two are one in the same or if it has developed since Dr. Bahnsen’s death. Honestly, for this post, I don’t care. It isn’t relevant. But Bahnsen definitely DIDN’T stray from the Westminster Standards when talking about Justification. And THAT is my main point.

Lastly, when speaking with my very good friend Ron about these matters, I am constantly reminding him that the language he used to explain to me his understanding of justification sounds too much like the RC doctrine that I grew up with and rejected, and he is a self professed FV guy. That is probably one of the main reason I have to this day refused to take on the label “FV.”

Kazoo

4 Comments | Theology, Theonomy | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by theonomist

About Me Updated

November 15, 2008

I just updated my ‘About Me’ page. Click on it above if you’re interested.

 

Kazoo

Leave a Comment » | Personal Favorites, Theology, Theonomy | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theonomist

Was Sinai a Republication of the Covenant of Works?

July 26, 2008

Searching for electronic copies of primary sources WRT the Westminster Divines, I came across this blog. Casey Bessette gives five reasons he disagrees with Dr. Clark from the Heidelblog where we find an article asserting that the Westminster Confession did in fact support the idea that God republished the CoW at Sinai. This article is linked here and entitled: Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1).

I thought I’d provide this here for anyone interested while I am re-grouping and preparing my next series of blog posts. Enjoy.

Kazoo

3 Comments | History, Theology | Permalink
Posted by theonomist

The Irrational Presbyterians of America

April 6, 2008

In June of 1643, the English Parliament appointed the Westminster Assembly of Divines to restructure the Church of England. The result of this assembly was a group of documents known as “The Westminster Standards.” The Assembly produced and forwarded to Parliament “The Directory for the Publick Worship of God”, “The Form of Presbyterial Church Government”, a creedal statement, “The Westminster Confession of Faith”, a “Larger Catechism” and a “Shorter Catechism”.

In 1788 the American Presbyterians made a few changes to the confession, and one little change to the catechism. Furthermore, they took out many of the proof texts that the original assembly included (I guess they thought that if they didn’t refer to the scripture, then they weren’t bound to consider it any more, *tongue in cheek*). Although I don’t agree with some of the conclusions or doctrine that this man represents, you can read about the changes here: The 1788 Revision.

So the point I want to expose here (and I can’t imagine that nobody else has ever pointed this out), has to do with kicking the ladder out from underneath yourself. Have you ever seen a comedy where someone climbs up a ladder to change a light bulb in a chandelier and inadvertently kicks the ladder over, left only to hang on the chandelier? Ultimately they fall to the ground, having lost their support. This is exactly what the 1788 assembly did to themselves. Let’s take a look:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646, states in Chapter 23, paragraph 3:

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1788, states in the same place:

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matter so faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Now if we think back to how the Standards came about in the first place, we should all realize that they are a result of something that our 1788 fathers obviously thought shouldn’t have happened. So maybe they should have just met to decide not to use them at all, instead of revise them. Food for thought.

Kazoo

EDIT 04/07/2008: I should note for those that don’t know me, I am a member in good standing at a PCA church. I love being Presbyterian, so take this post with that in mind.

24 Comments | History, Politics, Theology, Theonomy | Permalink
Posted by theonomist

Enough is Enough, The Church needs to REPENT!

March 8, 2008

The Catalyst

This week 3 God hating covenant breakers declared that home schooling in California is against the law. This is just one little symptom revealing the state of our nations relationship to the Sovereign Lord and King. This act by these three judges is their confession that they have usurped God’s authority and the people must obey the state instead. Of course, this is nothing new. Just state coercion to idolatry. It wants us to worship/obey it rather than God. Remember Daniel? Shadrach Meshach and Abednego? Just read the Declaration of Independence and you’ll see that we’ve faced these issues not long ago here in America. How soon the people forget. The Apostle Peter dealt with this issue as well:

Acts 5:28-29
Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Notice that Peter used the word “ought.” He didn’t say that they would “prefer” or that they “felt like,” but that they “ought” to obey God. You see NOBODY has the right to disobey God. NOBODY. God has communicated to everybody what is required of them. The apostle Paul does a great job of defending this idea in the epistle to the Romans. This idea being that ALL men will account to God for their disobedience to Him in this life AND in the life to come. Thank God we have a Savior to rely upon for settling that account. If you’re reading this and you don’t trust in Christ to save you from God’s wrath, stop now and seek His grace, forgiveness and repentance. Get familiar with the Gospel (Good News) and become one of His covenant keepers.

Now, the basic issue here is that God has ordained 3 (some say 4) spheres of authority/responsibility/rights. The family, the church, and the state. The fourth is the individual. So there is a self-government, a family government, a church government, and a state government. God gave each one of these spheres duties that are required of them, rights that are given to them, and ordained servants (ministers) to govern them. There are checks and balances between the three (or four), but each one has its own God given purpose. God’s law is clear that when one sphere steps into the other’s duties or rights, it is disobedience. When the state steps into the family sphere (in this case, education) then it is usurping God’s authority, and it becomes a tyrant. It becomes the beast. It is antichrist.

The Problem

Moving on, I want to talk about why we are finding ourselves more and more in the position of bondage to the state in this once great nation. And to be straight up about it, I’ll come right out and tell you what I think. THE AMERICAN CHURCH IS TO BLAME.

Deuteronomy 28:47-48
Because thou servedst NOT THE LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things ; 48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies WHICH THE LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things : and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

I recommend that you read all of chapter 28 in Deuteronomy. It’s quite an eye opener. But what does this have to do with our covenant breaking ‘friends’ in the California judiciary and the American church? Plenty. Take a look at my post “There is only ONE kingdom” and you’ll get an idea of what I’m getting at. You see, America is a wonderful inheritance that God established and gave to us. It should not be squandered. It is the land wherein each citizen possesses more liberty than this world has EVER seen. This was not some mistake of evolution or natural law or man’s ingenuity. America is a result of God’s providence AND His reward to His faithful servants who studied God’s Word and put it into practice as best they knew how. It is a blessing to His covenant people, and that blessing ran over and has blessed the covenant breakers as well. The blessing was so great that there is still blessing today AND even the WORLD has been blessed as a result. God is gracious. He is faithful, and His blessings last for generations. But the church has turned her attention inward. She has neglected the GREAT commission and replaced it with the ‘doom and gloom’ commission instead. The concept of God blessing or cursing a people can be seen in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The ultimate judgment would have been stayed if there were just 10 God fearers. God blesses His people and he also chastises them. The church is starting to suffer His chastisement, and will be responsible for her ultimate modern day exile that is to come if she won’t repent.

“Repent from what?,” you ask. From her partial obedience. She obeys God in many ways today. That’s wonderful. But God demands full obedience. If one only obeys partially, then one is in some way disobeying partially. The extent of disobedience will determine the extent (or the area) of His chastisement. I wrote about whether the church has something to say to politics with the affirmative answer. She has neglected this part of her calling. We are suffering as a result.We are squandering our inheritance. Christians have a majority in America. We have a government made up of men (and women) representatives. With this majority, there is no excuse, no reason, for our government to be filled with God haters and covenant breakers. Sadly, this is the case though, because the church ignores this duty when she disciples her families and individuals. She only disciples partially. She doesn’t teach us that part of our commission is to engage the culture. There is no other reason for this rise in our government’s disobedient tyranny. Even those Christians that are representatives aren’t discipled to know how to properly serve under God. It is a sad state indeed.

A Flawed Excuse

On a related subject, why is the church this way? I don’t know, really. I don’t have the answers. I believe that the history of the church here in America is a complicated one. There are many events and attitudes that have occurred over the past four centuries that have brought us to this point, and I am not going to try and cover them in this post. However, I will address at least one attitude and doctrine that I have encountered that is partially responsible for this sin of the American church. Yes, I called it SIN. It is the idea that we are to be like the Jews in Babylonian exile. We are to suffer in the here and now, or else we’re not representing Christ properly. We are to look forward to glory, but for now we are just pilgrims with nothing to say to this world, this culture. It is a theology of pessimism. A theology of doubt toward God and His Word. It is a sorry excuse for their lack of obedience. You see, they say that “this is the way it is supposed to be.” We can’t do anything about it. And so they do nothing about it, with justification. And then they teach our pastors to teach us the same. It’s no wonder we’re so weak and useless. But that’s not God’s plan. The Christian life is one that promises blessings for obedience in this life AND in the life to come. I sometimes wonder if our theologians have forgotten about the “already” in the phrase “already and not yet.”

I went to a live taping of a radio show last night. It was about the sin of the church leaning toward consumerism and meeting felt needs. The sin of “selling” Jesus. I agree that this too is a problem and a sin in our church today. I do not at all advocate these views. But in bucking against the one extreme the opponents of the church’s consumerism have gone too far to the other extreme. They basically said that the good news of the Gospel is all future. Until then we must suffer. Dr. Clark answered a question I asked by saying that he’s been accused of preaching a “doom and gloom” gospel and to that he can only reply: “Welcome to the Kingdom of God.” This faithlessness makes me want to vomit. And cry. And plead with our Lord to have mercy on us.

The Solution

I say to the church of God here in America: “WAKE UP! REPENT! Keep doing what you’re doing right, and add to it repentance for leaving this world behind. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. He came to destroy sin. So everywhere that sin rears its ugly head is where we are called to take the fight. But we won’t even take the fight where it belongs, if we don’t believe that it belongs there. May God have mercy on us.”

kazoo

46 Comments | Eschatology, Personal Favorites, Politics, Theology | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by theonomist

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started